get_analytics_group_models

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by noting pagination behavior and the Enterprise-gated access restriction and 403 response, which are not in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence concisely describes the tool's output and action; second sentence adds usage guidance and access restriction. Well front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (31 parameters), detailed schema descriptions, annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It mentions pagination and access restrictions, but could provide slightly more detail on pagination parameters or response structure. However, the output schema fills that gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions output fields. No additional parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('per-model breakdown'), and the data returned ('total_groups, group_count, and a models array containing request count, cost, and token usage'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming alternatives for time-series trends.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('compare model cost, popularity, and efficiency') and when not to ('use get_token_analytics or get_cost_analytics for time-series trends instead'). Also provides access restriction context ('Enterprise-gated. Returns 403 on non-Enterprise Portkey plans').

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.